On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:43:47PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >I've just upgraded my Slackware-based system from BDB 4.2.52 to 4.4.20.
> >That broke my existing svn installation (since the old libraries went
> >away), so I've just recompiled 1.3.0.
> Subversion 1.3.x does not supprt BDB-4.4. That support is currently only
> on trunk (although a backport is planned).
Yup, I've been following the discussions, I just wasn't sure whether
'support' in this context meant 'takes advantage of the new features',
or whether it meant 'works'. I assumed that BDB had a stable API beteween
minor versions, but I guess not.
> >Anyway, all the tests pass except for fs-base-test #2, which fails with:
> >svn_tests: Berkeley DB error for filesystem test-repo-open-berkeley while
> >opening environment:
> >Invalid argument
> >svn_tests: bdb: DB_REGISTER limits each process to a single open DB_ENV
> >FAIL: lt-fs-base-test 2: open an existing Berkeley DB filesystem
> Also, it's entirely impossible that you got an error mentioning
> DB_REGISTER from the 1.3.0 tarball.
> So, which version of SVN are you actually using?
Yes, I did wonder about that, but I didn't want to show my ignorance :)
> I suppose we should tweak configure to accept only blessed versions of
> BDB, yes; because the BDB API is prone to ABI changes between minor
> >Either way, I'm thinking that we should have something in the 1.3.0
> >release notes.
> Possibly. AFAIK we do mention BDB version related things in CHANGES.
> That should be enough.
Well, if the BDB API isn't supposed to be stable, there's no reason to
assume that it _should_ work, so no need to call out what should always
be the case.
> Anyway, we can't retroactively change the 1.3.0 release notes.
Well, we can't change the version in the tarball, but we could change
the version on the website, of course; I assume you're saying that we
wouldn't want to do that?
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Thu Mar 2 16:06:46 2006